Process & Structures of Implementation April 15, 2011 Presented by: Deanne Doherty, Ed.S., N.C.S.P. & Daniel Singer, Ed.S., N.C.S.P.

 Historical Context  Committee Structures  District and Building Challenges and Solutions  Next Steps

 How RTI began in Dist. 86: Approximately 2005  Demographic changes  Curriculum changes HSHS HSHS begins initiatives to help struggling students meet AYP goals HCHS HCHS formal steering committees formed to discuss existing data as part of ISBE RTI Self-Assessment

 Created programs in both buildings- English/Math Blocks  Fall 2008-Established District Steering Committee to assist in writing District RTI Plan Used South’s previous AYP plan as guideline  State required district plan for RtI Historical Timeline

Reading Academic Reading Classes Intervention programs “Excel” Math Math Blocks, Common Assessments “In Progress” Behavior PBIS/ Character Counts Discipline tracking Current School Year

District Steering Committee/Work Group Special Education Central Steering Committee Reading Math Behavior South Steering Committee Reading Math Behavior

 Purpose: Oversee district implementation of RTI initiative Support & encourage development of new programs Monitor legal compliance at building level  Composition: Asst. Sup., District Director of Student Services, AP Central & South, SPED Dept. Chairs, School Psychs, Subcommittee chairs  Meeting Schedule: Quarterly

 Purpose: Manage implementation and communication of RTI at building  Composition: Principal, AP, DC’s, Subcommittee Chairs, School Psych, School Support Personnel  Meeting Schedule: Bi-Annually

 Purpose: To implement response to intervention at building-level within reading, math and behavior  Composition: Teacher representatives from most academic departments, administrators, support personnel  Meeting Schedule: Every 4-6 weeks

 Compliance with IL mandate creates shift in procedures and service delivery Renewed effort to focus on skills instruction Organized effort to collect progress monitoring data Introduction of new reading curricula, math and writing interventions

 District Challenges: Balancing Autonomy v. Alignment Sustainability Compliance at state and federal level

AutonomyAlignment LOW HIGH LOW HIGH

LOW HIGH LOW HIGH

Autonomy LOW HIGH Alignment HIGH LOW

Solution: Identify the key elements of process Agree to the same outcomes Example: District Work Group Specific Learning Disability Eligibility process AutonomyAlignment LOW HIGHLOW HIGH

PositionYear Hired Superintendent2005 Assistant Superintendent2006, 2008, 2010 District Director of Student Services 2007, 2008, 2009 Building Principal Central2009, 2010 Assistant Principals Central2010, 2011 Building Principal South2008 Assistant Principals South2006, 2009

 Submitted District RTI plan to state January 2009  Special Education Eligibility Decisions using RTI New Territory Legal implications?  Lack of case law  Demonstration site/districts?  Professional Development (LADSE) Existing process and structures?  Resulted in comprehensive needs assessment and review of ongoing efforts, as well as professional development for staff.  Expansion of Tier II programming within General Education  Seven Feeder Districts Lack of Consistency across feeder schools in process and practice

 Professional Development  Scheduling  Resource Allocation  Data Collection  Demographics

 RTI Stakeholders attended trainings to increase knowledge and skills on issues related to implementation  Targeted teachers receive professional development and trainings on specific intervention programs of RTI  School Psychologists provide professional development on legislative changes specific to special education, progress monitoring, problem solving method, data analysis, use of software programs.

 Created additional block class for At-Risk students in math and reading  Students involved in some RTI programs can receive elective credit  Special Education provides tutorial time afterschool 2x/week

 Ongoing discussion of roles and responsibilities for data collection  Continued assessment of needs within building  FTE Distribution Decisions  Investment in interventions with demonstrated effectiveness  Example: Use of Excel Program

 Tier II General Education programs for English and Math administer progress monitoring probes  Office Discipline Referral data are captured and analyzed monthly  SPED students benchmarked in reading and math

Screening (Problem Identification) Diagnostic (Problem Analysis) Progress Monitoring (Plan Development and Implementation) Outcome/Accountability EXPLORE EXPLORE Teacher Recs. Teacher Recs. Existing CBM data Existing CBM data MAP MAP ODR ODR Nelson-Denny (Vocab./Comp) Nelson-Denny (Vocab./Comp) Gates-McGinitie Gates-McGinitie Class-Based Asses. Class-Based Asses. Normed, Stndzd. Asses. (WIAT III, Key Math, etc.) Normed, Stndzd. Asses. (WIAT III, Key Math, etc.) CBM’s (math, reading, writing) CBM’s (math, reading, writing) Student Information Data (attendance, ODR, grade book) Student Information Data (attendance, ODR, grade book) Common Assessments Common AssessmentsPSAEPLANPSATCBMGradesODRsAYP

 Use of Universal Screeners to assist with placement decisions  Transfer students enrolled in orientation program, assigned a student ambassador, and some are given adult mentors  Off-Campus Excel program  At-Risk program for attendance, emotional difficulties, medical needs

 Continue Professional Development  Continue Identification of Needs  Explore new interventions  System for fidelity/integrity monitoring  Communication between School and Home  Data collection accessibility

 Continue RTI Work Group collaboration  Alignment with State Common Core Standards  Social/Emotional Learning initiative

 Questions?  Contact Info: Daniel Singer: Deanne Doherty: